On May 17, 2011, at 1:18 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> So, we have three choices:
>>
>> A) Keep the angles as they are, with 0deg=East and 90deg=North
>> B) Switch to screen-coord polar, with 0deg=East and 90deg=South
>> C) Switch to bearing angles, with 0deg=North and 90deg=East
>>
>> Except for 'azimuth', current properties are consistent with either B
>> or C, as they just use the angles for rotation, not direction. I
>> slightly lean towards B now, but I'd be okay with C too.
>>
>> Implementors, what do you think? Are you okay with changing the angle
>> definition? If so, do you prefer B or C?
>
> I don't think implementor's preference is nearly as important as the
> authors' preference.
Neither do I.
The angle in linear-gradient is being used for indicating a linear direction, not a rotation, and I believe that is how most authors would think about it. The other use of angle value mentioned are all for rotation, where 0deg does NOT indicate any particular linear direction, so I don't see that as an inconsistency, because it is a different sort of thing. Comparing 'transform:rotate' with 'linear-gradient' is like comparing margin-top and margin-bottom, where positive numbers can mean two different directions when used in different contexts.
Also, authors are using gradients now, with prefixes. Changing the meaning of such an important part of the syntax at this point, to mean something opposite, would mean breaking Web sites, with little hope that they could be fixed by authors in a way that still supported multiple versions of multiple browsers.